Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
)
)
)
) Case No. 1:16-cv-1256
)
)
)
)
)
)
COMPLAINT
Summary of lawsuit
1.
2000 and the Indianapolis photo was registered with the U.S. Copyright office. In
2016, the Plaintiff discovered that the Defendant Progressive Urban Management
Associates (P.U.M.A.) had published the Indianapolis photo on a website
P.U.M.A. created even though Defendant did not have the rights or authority to
publish same. The Plaintiff requests damages and injunctive relief against
Defendant P.U.M.A. for violations of the U.S. Copyright laws.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
2.
This copyright infringement action arises under 17 U.S.C. 101 et seq. This
Court has jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. 1331 (federal question), and
28 U.S.C. 1338 (acts of Congress related to copyright).
3.
This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendant by virtue of their
transacting, doing, and soliciting business in this District, and because a substantial
part of the relevant events occurred in this District and because a substantial part of
the property that is the subject of this action is situated here.
4.
because the named plaintiff Richard N. Bell resides in this district and because a
substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a
substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated; and/or conduct
business in this district.
PARTIES
5.
downtown Indianapolis skyline from overlooking the canal from St. Clair Avenue.
8.
law.
Indianapolis Photo
9.
Since March 2000, the Plaintiff has either published or licensed for publication
all copies of the Indianapolis Photo in compliance with the copyright laws and has
remained the sole owner of the copyright.
10.
Indianapolis Photo was first published on the World Wide Web on August 29,
The Indianapolis Photo was registered on August 4, 2011 with the United
Plaintiff and others authorized by the Plaintiff have used the Indianapolis
Plaintiff and others authorized by the Plaintiff have used the Indianapolis
Defendant
P.U.M.A.
created
website
with
the
domain
name
16.
Defendants are liable to Plaintiff because it had the right and ability to
Upon information and belief, the Defendant P.U.M.A. downloaded or took the
Indianapolis Photo from the internet without permission from the owner.
18.
In April 2016, the Plaintiff discovered through the computer program Google
images that the website of the Defendant P.U.M.A. contained the Indianapolis Photo
at http://www.pumaworldhq.com/page.php?p=projects which P.U.M.A. even attaches
his own copyright to the page contains the Indianapolis photo.
19.
Defendant did not disclose the source of the stolen Indianapolis Photo or
otherwise conferred credit to the owner; instead, Defendant willfully and recklessly
falsely claimed that it owned the copyrights of all images and photos contained in the
Defendants website including Indianapolis Photo and thereby disparaged the
Plaintiff.
20.
During the year 2016, the website of Defendant, P.U.M.A. published the
Indianapolis Photo for its commercial use without paying for said use and without
obtaining the necessary authorization from the Plaintiff, the copyright owner.
21.
While the Defendant will know the exact date of first publication, based upon
the Plaintiffs investigation, during the year 2016, Defendant began publishing the
Indianapolis Photo and used the Indianapolis Photo for their commercial use without
paying for said use and without obtaining the necessary authorization from the
Plaintiff.
22.
The Defendant knew that they did not own Indianapolis Photo and knew the
Defendant had not obtained the rights to publish the Indianapolis Photo, but
recklessly and falsely represented to the world otherwise.
23.
Defendant P.U.M.A. has not paid anyone for the right to publish the
Indianapolis Photo, but instead fraudulently declared that the Defendant owned the
copyrights to the Indianapolis Photo.
24.
25.
Defendant has not agreed be enjoined from using the Indianapolis Photo.
26.
connection with its publication of the Indianapolis Photo, thus causing irreparable
damage.
27.
causing substantial and irreparable injury and damage to Plaintiff in an amount not
capable of determination, and, unless restrained, will cause further irreparable
injury, leaving the Plaintiff with no adequate remedy at law.
28.
There is a risk of infringing conduct which has caused and will likely cause
substantial and irreparable injury and damage to Plaintiff in an amount not capable
of determination, and, unless restrained, will cause further irreparable injury,
leaving the Plaintiff with no adequate remedy at law.
29.
Plaintiff has complied in all respects with 17 U.S.C. 101 et seq., and secured
the exclusive rights and privileges in and to the copyrights of the above-referenced
works.
30.
Plaintiff has been and still is the sole proprietor of all rights, title, and interest
result of their wrongful conduct, Defendant P.U.M.A. has realized and continues to
realize profits and other benefits rightfully belonging to Plaintiff. Accordingly,
Plaintiff seek an award of damages pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 504 and 505.
34.
Defendants infringing conduct has also caused and is causing substantial and
your copyrighted materials that, if granted, would require that the Indianapolis
Photo not be available on which would thereby make it impossible for third party
Internet users to download copies of the Indianapolis Photo from said webpage.
36.
Defendant has willfully and deliberately engaged in, and, is willfully engaging
in, the acts complained of with oppression, fraud, and malice (Acts) and in conscious
disregard of the rights of Plaintiff. Plaintiff is, therefore, entitled to the maximum
statutory damages allowable.
37.
Examples of these willfully and deliberately Acts, include but not limited to
the following:
a. Defendant downloaded or took the Indianapolis Photo from the internet
and included said photo on the Defendants website.
b. Defendant failed to designate the source of the stolen Indianapolis Photo
or otherwise confer credit to the owner.
As a consequence of this dispute between the parties as to the rights, title, and
interest in the copyrighted articles described above, and pursuant to the Federal
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. 2201 and 2202, Plaintiff also seek a
resolution of this ongoing controversy by a declaration of this Court as to the rights
of the respective parties in this matter.
THEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendant P.U.M.A. as follows:
a. Declaring that Defendants unauthorized conduct violates Plaintiffs
rights under common law and the Federal Copyright Act;
b. Immediately and permanently enjoining Defendant P.U.M.A., their
members,
officers,
directors,
agents,
servants,
employees,
representatives, attorneys, related companies, successors, assigns, and
all others in active concert or participation with them from copying and